Heart of Texas
2021 — Dallas, TX/US
NCX Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Damien High school 22' , 3rd-year varsity debater
put me on the chain @ - JJBartholomew22@damien-hs.edu
Respect the judge and opponents
I'm cool with spreading just don't go warp speed through blocks and always emphasize/signpost, ill shout clear if you're going too
fast. thoroughly extend warrants, shadow extending sucks. Better analysis is better than card dumping and
don't leave it up to me to do the work for you. Good speaks for comparative analysis. I'm pretty familiar with
the topic but don't assume I know the entirety of an arg.
Theory cool and ill vote on it, unless there's an obvious answer. I generally think Condos good but ill evaluate it if the
other team mishandles it. No aspec, cross-x solves. The same condo rules apply to all theory if its argued well and its
mishandled ill vote. Individual off case violations are a reason to reject the team unless told otherwise.
Love good CP's and DA's
Thoroughly explain how the CP interacts with the DA,
The permutation usually solves and every counterplan needs a specific reason why the perm can't function or is bad
Neg: I don't have a high threshold for DA's, especially on this year's topic, ill vote on it if it's not likely as long as you
frame the debate properly. Don't shadow extend if you're going CP DA, thorough explanation of how the CP
doesn't link or resolves the NB. Decision/impact calc is important, I won't do the work for you unless the aff is lacking. 2NC cp's
Aff: I'm not a fan of the solvency deficits that x actor can't do x plan because of authority unless there's a solid impact. Not all
Solvency deficits need a major one but at least a good reason. I'll side with the affirmative on judge kicking unless im
told otherwise and evaluate DA's vs the squo. Perms are your friend and you should use them, they're usually the best way out of a
I'm a big fan of T on this year's topic
Neg: I'll vote if explained well, author quals and intent to define/exclude is important. Competing interpretations is usually
good, must be explained or ill default to reasonability. Good explanation of how each component interacts with one
another. Thoroughly extend the interpretation and compete off of it. I generally don't like T but its definitely viable given the topic.
Aff: Don't just read a generic block, genuinely answer it. I usually don't like reasonability unless it's expanded upon
but not just if I think the aff is T. I'm not a huge fan of the SCOTUS aff's so watch out for T.
Neg: not my favorite, don't assume I know all of the literature but I'm pretty familiar,
no votes for no explanations, let me know if I need a new flow for the overview, good link works win, decision calc for
filtering my decision, read a plan
Aff: must be effective on the case, don't undercover it to answer the K, ill vote on perf con if its a major contradiction. Perms
usually arent your friends here. Perf con justifies severing reps. I'll usually let the aff weigh case.
Aff: be efficient in case, don't spend the whole 2ac on it. Explain the aff well.
Neg: don't card dump and expect to win, DA turns case arg's are good, good impact on both sides of the debate is important. Im
willing to vote on presumption if there are major concessions and I'm effectively told so
John Block: firstname.lastname@example.org please add me to email chain, thanks
Missouri state State ‘12
Last Updated: September 2020
I am currently completing my final year of medical school so I have been out of the judging game to some extent so be aware that acronyms/the latest K lit I may not be up to date with. That being said I assist LRCH and judge practice debates/listen to practices. I believe that my job is to be a reactionary presence in the room. I do have my own opinions which I’ll get to in a bit but I should be receptive to basically anything you are doing. Being nice goes a long way. Make my job easy. If you can write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR I would be happy for you to do so. Even if statements are phenomenal, no one will win 100% of the arguments, recognize and embrace that.
Digital debate will be an adjustment to all. I have watched some debates but they were conducted over Zoom so I will be new to this software interface so please be patient if and when glitches arise.
You don’t need evidence for an argument, although it helps.
Specifics: T/Framework-I am not exclusively a policymaker. I’m just a person evaluating a discussion of ideas. That being said I went for Framework quite regularly in college and have voted on it multiple times. Be interactive with the other side, don’t just read blocks at each other. TVA’s are important and so are aff visions of the topic that are navigable to the negative team.
Theory: bad theory arguments are just that, bad. If you want to go for theory great but I am pretty easily swayed by reject the argument not the team. If you want to read consult/conditions style arguments I can get on board pretty easily. If you want to read multiple CPs without solvency advocates to simply skew the 2AC’s time I’m less on your side.
Case Debates-crucial to a good round. You can make my threshold to vote negative significantly lower if you have good case args, these don’t have to be supported by evidence but again it helps. Ev analysis has gotten somewhat lost in my opinion over the years. Read the text/read who this person is, discuss why one piece of evidence should be prioritized (does it assume the other team’s ev? Is it newer? Is it better analysis etc?)
DA’s-PTX is fun, elections is an exciting time to be reading it. Otherwise topic DA’s are great too. Don’t forget to have specific links to the aff and a good internal link. Similarly, don’t forget to identify flaws in the internal link chain or why your aff is different than what the link evidence assumes/why it would be perceived differently.
CP’s: having a solvency advocate is good but not necessary. I read a lot of hyperspecific CP’s in my day but also think a lot of it can become esoteric. If you have a great counterplan to read go for it, if you have a generic CP, go for it. Delay is questionable from a theory level but I’ll certainly listen to it.
K’s-Guide me through the K and what it means for the hypothetical world of the aff vs the hypothetical world of the alternative. Explain what specifically the aff does, specifically what the 1AC said or the assumptions that went into it. I may not be hip to the latest high theory K’s but I hear of some of them by proximity to debate even if I haven’t sat in the back of rounds in recent times.
K Affs: Most of what I wrote in the K area applies here. I think I am slightly K leaning as far as my threshold for voting on T or F/W so keep that in mind. What is the ballot and why does it matter for whatever the aff is. I am a bigger fan of embracing the K side of the aff and not as crazy about “soft-left” affs as I have been in the past.
CX-don’t just use it for prep. A good CX can end a debate round early on. This may be difficult with virtual debate and people just trying to talk over each other.
Cheating: If I suspect it I will report it. I will often read along and will likely do this even more because hearing specifics of spreading may be more difficult virtually.
I'll vote on anything except death good and stuff like that, feel free to ask me questions before the round. Please flow and time your speeches and prep. I prefer policy and I'm not that familiar with specific K lit, but I'll vote on Ks.
Have fun and don't be mean!
Update 12/2- I have voted on disclosure theory, but I do not enjoy it. Personally, I don't see disclosure as a voting issue. I debated before disclosure became the norm in NFA, and disclosure is impossible in NPDA. Since I've come back into the debate community in the past couple years, disclosure has become the norm and I missed that transition. My teams disclose and I'm personally in favor of disclosure, but there are solid arguments that disclosure isn't necessary for good debate. I am also highly annoyed by teams that run the same neg strat every round regardless of the aff while also running disclosure.
I do not think there is any reason for the neg to disclose, and I think expecting the neg to disclose is silly.
I am very open to RVIs on abusive or silly procedurals like "being in the same room is a voting issue," disclosure, or silly Ts.
I prefer round-specific clash. Teams that are too reliant on blocks miss key extensions or cross applications that would allow them to efficiently answer arguments. I give a ton of weight to dropped arguments--if you have a (for example) framing card in your 1AC that goes dropped, you can and should extend it to answer the neg's framing card. If I had a dollar for every time the aff doesn't extend a "aff is the necessary first step" card that answers a DA or K, I would be able to afford tournament-provided food at nationals.
Update 10/30- As the year goes on both in NFA and NSDA, I find myself viewing process arguments highly favorably. If the federal government doesn't have the power to enact the plan, or if the agent of the CP can't enact the CP, I am very open to solvency args or fiat abuse/workability procedurals. I believe part of (non-kritikal) policy debate should include a burden of proof for solvency, and part of that is workability. For example, I am very open to fiat abuse/extra T args against NSDA affs that rely on reforming local/county/state law enforcement for solvency or court cases that do not specify a test case.
Experience: Competed in NFA-LD and NPDA for Hillsdale College from 2011-2013. Competed in NCFCA policy from 2008-2009. Have coached for Hillsdale, Nebraska-Lincoln, and Marshall. Current policy and IE coach at Grace Academy of Georgetown. I judge for Grace Academy in NSDA/TFA/NCFL and Hillsdale in NFA/NPDA. This paradigm should apply to both.
General paradigm: My goal is to be the most generic flow judge possible. I am slightly old-school in my burden of proof. I'm by no means a stock-issues judge, but I will vote on terminal defense, "traditional" link or impact calc weighing case against a K, etc. Generally, I am open to any argument, but I will not do work for debaters on the flow. I slightly favor policy debate over K debate, but only because I think its much easier to have a good policy round than a good K round. I mostly ran policy when I competed, so I'm more familiar with that style, but I do think a good K debate is more fun than a good policy debate. I have no stats to back this up, but I feel like Ks have about a 50% winrate in front of me.
Don't be racist, homophobic, etc in front of me. Challenging critical theory is fine, exclusion is not.
1. I will always default to policymaker unless I'm put in some alternative paradigm.
2. I always weigh biggest impacts first, with timeframe and probability as the "tiebreaker."
3. I do not evaluate probability arguments without specific warrants as to why a scenario is unlikely. I.e. saying "This won't happen" with no warrants is not an argument I flow.
4. I am comfortable voting on stock issues, so long as the burdens of the aff and neg are clearly articulated. If burdens are not clearly articulated, I will default to policymaking.
5. I am fine with kritiks, although in LD I think it is difficult to set up a clear framework within the time limits. If you do not do a good job of setting up an alternate world for the K framework, I am open to "aff impacts outweigh K" arguments. I am fine with counterplans, including conditional CPs. I am moderately familiar with K literature, but I have been out of the NFA circuit for a while so do not assume I have heard your K before.
6. I see T as jurisdictional and do not require proven abuse. I will not evaluate T/procedurals that does not specify violations or voters. I will also only evaluate the voters given in the round. For example, if you win that there is ground loss on the standard debate, but don't have a fairness voter, I won't vote on the ground loss. Similarly, if you win that T is a voter for fairness, but don't prove there has actually been abuse in-round, you don't win on T, even if you win the violation. I can't imagine a scenario in which I vote on potential abuse. All that to say: if you want to win T in front of me, proven abuse is great, but run a jurisdiction voter to be safe.
7. I think everything, including the governing league's rules, are up for debate. I mostly see procedurals such as vagueness/Aspec as a way to guarantee ground for DA links/CPs/Ks/etc; it is very rare for me to vote on them in a vacuum.
8. I am fine with speed so long as it is not exclusionary. It is unlikely any competitors will be able to spread me out so long as their organization is clear. In-round behavior can be a voter so long as it is 1) egregious and 2) made a voter by the opposing team. Absent in-round arguments, I use speaker points as a way to punish abusive behavior. Slurs are, of course, an instaloss.
9. Unless a card is called into dispute, I will always assume the reader's analysis/tag is accurate. I will only read cards if the opponent asks me to or if it is absolutely necessary for my decision. Please put me on any email chains or speechdrop.
10. Please be very clear with your organization. Tell me where specifically to put arguments. I do not do cross-application for debaters. If you don't tell me where specifically to put something on the flow, I will make my best guess and put it there. That can lead to you dropping something you didn't intend to, and at the very least will negatively affect speaker points. If both teams are unclear in organization, I'll do my best to reconstruct the round, but things can get weird. It's easier for everyone if you just take a second and say "On the Smith card..."
Currently a sophomore debater at the University of Southern California. Debated in high school for the Barstow School.
Quick Note on getting easy Speaker Points from me and Spreading;
1) If both teams agree to NOT spread before the round and tell me so, then everyone gets +1 speaks. If any team breaks this agreement, then that team will lose the round.
2) If one team does NOT spread throughout the round, while the other team does, the team that did not spread will get +1.5 speaks
3) If the non-spreading team beats the spreading team, the non-spreading team will receive 30s.
If you want me to flow an important analytic or theory arguments, then you should SUBSTANTIALLY slow down. The same is true of tags. I have a relatively high bar for clarity, and if it doesn't get on my flow, then it didn't happen. I'm NOT saying you shouldn't spread, but you should spread with a mind for being relatively clear. This is ESPECIALLY true of permutations and theory args.
Summary of Paradigm;
I've debated mostly policy arguments throughout my debate career, but I do understand the basics of kritiks and will vote on them. For the AFF, I've only ever read policy AFFs, but this doesn't mean that I won't vote for a K-AFF as long as you defend how debate would be like under your vision. I really value teams that can write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR.
I've really only defended policy affirmatives throughout my career, so this is where I feel most comfortable. By the 2AR (or even the 1AR), there really should be only a single story/impact scenario that you're going for. I don't have a preference for extinction or structural violence impacts, so both sides will have to settle this issue for me.
For K-AFFs, I think that if you can defend your model of debate, than you will win. I think both education and fairness are equally viable impacts for the NEG (or even the AFF depending on how you contextualize your impacts). K-AFF v K debates are something that I haven't really done or judged in before, so if you're NEG, Id recommend either going for T/FW or a simple kritik like Cap.
I'm down for most CP stuff, even if you don't have a specific solvency advocate (obviously, its better if you do). This being said, if you're gonna read a CP without any solvency ev, you'd better extrapolate in the 1NC how you solve the AFF, rather than explain it all in the 2NC. If you can do that, I'm more likely to view the argument favorably than a generic CP.
I have debated and gone for a few kritiks, so I am familiar with the basic structure of a K. If you're going for a K, I think you need to clearly explain the thesis of your kritik and in what way it indicts the logic of the AFF. The less buzzwords you use, the better. If you're defending against a K, I think you should first win the AFF is correct and defend your assumptions and how they're made.
Additionally, I prefer links that are not descriptive of the status quo, and would like the explanation of the link to be pertinent to what the AFF does, i.e. "The AFF does X or says Y, which is representative of Z", rather than "The AFF uses the United States federal government, which is bad for A, B, or C reasons"
I am not familiar with the structure of this topic or any popular definitions, so if you debate it well enough, you can probably win any interpretation in front of me.
On condo, I largely think that the NEG should hold themselves to no more than 3 conditional off (arbitrary preference). I think the NEG can defend more conditional advocacies and the AFF can say 3 or fewer condo is bad.
I hate getting into more complex theory debates like textual/functional competition, so the NEG should really try to keep their CPs as theoretically kosher as possible
I default to theory args are a reason to reject the argument and not the team, unless specified by the AFF.
- Please don't read new off in the block unless the 2N justifies it
Assistant Debate Coach: Baton Rouge Magnet
Former Coach: Omaha Westside, Lindenwood University, Southern Methodist University
Debated at KCKCC and Millard South High SchoolTop Level
Not gonna lie... kind of a wild card situation.
One year I got to judge finals of CEDA, that was really cool! I sat though...
For some reason I find myself in a lot of 7 off type debates, I think it's an archaic model of debate, but, nonetheless, I am capable of making a sound decision.
I very seldom read evidence unless there is a dispute about the meaning of evidence in the round, or it is an absolute tie breaker situation
THE LINK RULES THE GAME - LINK DIRECTION ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY DETERMINES HOW I EVALUATE AND COMPARE IMPACTS
I evaluate Offense before Defense
I don't believe in topicality; I'll vote for it (I'm Lying) and my teams might run it on occasion, but I don't believe in the idea that we should limit knowledge production to a certain side of the library...
The Framework debate for me is won by Topical Version of the aff solving enough of the aff's impacts to resolve the limits DA... I'll also vote for your framework if you win that it fosters better skills.
Frankly, I just don't care what topic the aff talks about, I only care that the aff does something that changes the way things are... with that being said I am a lot more negative oriented when it comes to theory debates... I don't think the aff should get to tell the negative what to do... none of this is universal... but I just find myself lost in most technical theory debates.Being Negative is Hard
I think the negative has to win a reason why the aff is BAD or WORSE in order to win my ballot... they don't do x is not a link, and in my mind when you rest your hat on that argument the aff has enough room in the debate to say "at least we did something else that's still good"
Your alt/cp does nothing for me without a link... even if the 2ac drops it.. i don't care unless there is reason I can tell the aff that they make the world worse. If it is dropped i still need to understand what i am voting for... i will 100 percent not assume any impact or link that is not explained or understood by me on the flow and from a previous speech.
I have voted on no aff solvency many times but it involved shutting a lot of doors on the aff's flexibility and winning that solving x was key to every advantage the aff can claim.
I like plan flaws, i like pics... i love being negative and a lot of the teams I coach win about equal to or more neg rounds... i just think the negative has to assume predictable pivot points the aff can take via winning an advantage or an external net benefit.
After Grapevine 2020 i've decided to change the way I do speaker points... My base will now be a 28 (previously 27.5) I realized i've been doing a disservice to people who are really good speakers.
Fairness is not an Impact
TVAs are just floating PICS and i find the permutation very persuasive
I vote against my personal beliefs a lot
I think it's a shame
Truth > Tech
BOTTOM LINE IS - I WANNA BE CONVINCED OF SOMETHING IN A DEBATE... I WANNA FEEL ENGAGED... I WANNA SEE A DEBATE WHERE PEOPLE ARE LESS AFRAID TO TRY SOMETHING RADICALLY DIFFERENT...
I've debated for five years for Liberal Arts Sciences Academy. This means I probably agree with most norms of debate. I will take the easiest way out when making a decision. I do not want to read a ton of cards and I will default to whatever evidence comparison/ spin was said in the debate regardless of if it was true if it is not challenged. I do not want to hear in depth debates on whether or not fairness is an impact on framework because I don't think it matters. I also am not super familiar with a lot of K literature and I will not give you the benefit of the doubt if you under explain it.
email@example.com, yes to questions and email chain. I am a debate coach at Little Rock Central.
I believe that my role is to listen, flow, and weigh the arguments offered in the round how I am told to weigh them by each team, starting with the framework debate, if applicable. I do not think that debates have to focus on government action being good or bad; instead, I think debates should be focused on whether or not some kind of well-articulated change(s) to the status quo is good or bad. I will listen to and evaluate any argument.
You can win my ballot best if you:
1. Explain the links and impacts of your arguments well.
2. Organize your arguments well, especially in the overviews.
3. Do evidence comparison as necessary.
4. Tell me how to write my ballot, and why I should be writing in that way.
Unethical behavior: Autoloss for any behavior that is racist, transphobic, ableist, or violent. I will treat all debaters and members of our community with courtesy and respect, and I expect you to do the same.
I really enjoy the idea that debate can be for topic education and playing a game in that two teams articulate whether or not the United States Federal Government should take some kind of action compared to some kind of negative alternative or maintaining the status quo. I think the best policy affirmatives are specific in the action that they want to take. The link and impact debates are key for me.
Kritikal Affirmatives and Framework
I think it’s important for k-affs to be able to articulate how the negative side could engage with them, and explain the role of the negative in the debate. If the kritikal affirmative can win that the state is bad in spite of the negative’s arguments, then I don’t think there is any problem voting for an aff without a plan text or an aff that doesn’t engage with the USFG. If the kritikal affirmative can win that engaging with the topic is bad and their education/fairness outweighs the topical education/fairness, then I don’t think there is any problem with voting for a non-topical affirmative.
I will vote for any kritikal argument that wins its method and theory of power and explains these aspects well, including embedded critiques of debate.
Quality over quantity. Happy to listen and evaluate any neg strat. I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with any negative strategy aside from choosing a bunch of blippy arguments or lacking in-depth analysis (or doing anything unethical, see General). When it comes to case debate and offcase links, the more specific, the better. Number of offcase: 6 is the limit.
1. Perms: More than “perm do X;” please explain how the perm works.
2. Ks: I’m fine if you kick the alt and win the link and impact.
3. Ks/K-Affs: Please explain your method and theory of power well.
4. T: I really have a hard time being convinced that an aff is too specific.
5. Speed: Think 8/10 and slowing down a bit on the counterplan text, perms, and analytics in the overview. (I have no theoretical problem with speed… just being realistic on my limit.)
My email for speech documents is: firstname.lastname@example.org
HS debate from 1991 - 1995
CEDA/NDT debate at Pace University from 1995 - 2000.
I assistant coached at St. Marks from 2001-2004.
Long break until 2020.
I am currently coaching a new program.
Judges enforce speech time and pick a winner.
Judges judge best that intervene least.
Speaking clarity is very important.
High speaker points for clarity, excellent research, depth, and understanding of arguments.
Respect your opponents.
Low speaker points for lack of speaking clarity, reliance on debate theory over research.
I will mostly try to flow without looking at your speech documents. If I can't understand what you are saying due to clarity issues, I won't shore that up by reading along in the speech document.
I will attempt to render a decision based on how you weigh the debate, rather than my own interpretation of how to weigh the arguments.
Adithya Kombathula (he/him)
Little Rock Central '21 (i've done it all)
Feel free to call me Adi.
Section I: Background
If it matters to you, most of my career centered around reading critical strategies both affirmative and negative, and debating them in a technical manner. To that end, I am fine with anything as long as it is debated well. Judge instruction, contextualization, and impact calculus delivered in a clear, concise manner will win my ballot. My style of debate has influenced the way I judge and evaluate arguments, but not my argumentative preferences. I hated judge intervention as a debater and hate it even more as a judge, so don't make me do it. I am of the belief that tabula rasa is not a thing- I'll evaluate what you put on the table to the absolute best of my ability.
Section II. Miscellaneous
If you are problematic (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.), I reserve the right to do the following: leave, kill your speaks, hand you this L, and/or contact your coaches. Do us both a favor and strike me if this is you.
Finesse/confidence is distinct from blatant disrespect/degradation. I love to see good shots taken here and there, but recognize where the line is. I reserve the right to be the judge for the line of distinction.
Tech>Truth - but saying "they dropped ______" does not seal the deal- extend a warrant and tell me what it means for the debate.
Slow down on important things like plan/cp texts, perms, theory arguments, and anything else that will require me to get what you said verbatim.
Embedded Clash- I love K Tricks and 2NC overviews with offense but these arguments need structure by the 2NR for me to vote on them. Ambiguity gets you nowhere.
Evidence Quality- Bad quality evidence also gets you nowhere. I would rather you read a few well warranted cards as opposed to a wave of terribly highlighted evidence.
Re-highlightings: read em
Speech times are non-negotiable.
I'm cool with flex prep, open cx, and ins and outs.
Section III. Critical Affirmatives
You should probably pref me as a 1 or a 2.
I really don't care how in the direction of the topic you are but explain your method clearly and concisely. I don't think that aff teams need to win that the ballot is key for their method.
For aff teams:
Against framework: I most frequently vote aff when the aff wins impact turns that outweigh the neg’s impacts and have a counter-interp that resolves the majority of their offense. I can still vote for you if you don’t have a counter-interp in the 2AR but only if the impact work is exceptional. I prefer affs that argue that the skills and methods produced under their model inculcate more ethical subjectivities than the negative’s. est aff teams I’ve seen are good at contextualizing their arguments, framing, and justifying why their model and not their aff is uniquely good.
I am most frequently preffed for K v K debates. Judge instruction is extremely important here as these debates can become muddled extremely quickly. I would rather evaluate those rounds based on whose method is most relevant to the debate rather than a flurry of meaningless k tricks designed to bog down the other team.
For neg teams: I like to see framework deployed as debate methodologies that are normatively good versus debate methodologies that are undesirable and should be rejected. Framework debates should center on the impact of certain methodologies on the debate space. “Your argument doesn’t belong in debate” is not the same thing as “your argument is hindered by forum” or “your argument makes it functionally impossible to be negative.” (fun fact: I read a lot of judges' paradigms/preferences..."debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game, and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad). I prefer more deliberation & skills-based framework arguments rather than procedural fairness, but I will vote on either as long as you have warrants and comparative impact analysis. If going for skills & research impacts, the internal link debate is most important. TVAs are great as defense against the aff’s impact turns. They do not have to solve the aff but should address its central controversy.
Section IV: Topicality
Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. T debates are won and lost on the standards level. If the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact of topicality, then I see no reason to vote negative. Thorough T debates are about more than fairness. The idea that you have no game on an aff in this era is just not as persuasive as the idea that the aff’s interpretation negatively impacts future debates. For the immigration topic: I agree with the general consensus that topical affs must provide legal permanent residence.
Section V: Disadvantages/Counterplans
No real issues here. Specific links to case obviously preferred to generic arguments. Give me good impact analysis. As a debater, counterplans weren’t really my jam (shout out to that delay/midterms combo that saved me sophomore year though). As a judge, I can’t say that I get to vote on CPs often because they are typically kicked or are not competitive enough to survive an affirmative team well-versed in permutations. A CP should be something to which I can give thoughtful consideration. Don’t blow through a really complicated (or long) CP text. Likewise, if the permutation(s) is intricate, slow down. Pretty sure you want me to get these arguments down as you read them, not as I reconstruct them in cross. I vote for theory as much as I don’t vote for theory. No real theoretical dispositions. I AM NOT JUDGE KICKING YOUR CP UNLESS YOU EXPLICITLY TELL ME I SHOULD DO SO. IT IS LITERALLY ONE SENTENCE.
Section VI: Theory
If you read vague alts, I'm not evaluating it. I'm serious. Until someone can tell me what makes vague alts less vague than the actual alternative being read, I refuse to evaluate it.
Condo is the only reason to reject the team other than ethics violations. Other stuff is most likely just reject the argument. Theory is kind of hard to determine definitively what claims are true, so impacting that out with warrants is your best chance although there's obviously a higher threshold than substance. Everyone reads huge blocks for these anyways so whatever.
The point is, take your analysis beyond your blocks.
Section VII: Parting Thoughts
Jay-Z once said something really profound: "Don't ever go with the flow, be the flow."
Take this how you will. People around you and the culture that debate is fundamentally intertwined in is invested in numbers. Win-loss records. Baker points. TOC Bids. Coaches polls. You get the gist. Keep in mind, however, that, debate is first and foremost an educational, transformative activity. Part of the beauty in debate is that the space for innovation is limitless. Debate is exhausting. Your coaches, squad members, and teammates put in countless hours of work to put you in the best possible position to win debates. Realize that while winning is cool, it isn't everything. The student that goes 2-4 or 1-5 at a tournament but presents innovative, boundary pushing argumentation, even in its most basic form/testing phase, already has just as much respect as the person going 6-0 doing the same basic thing every tournament. They've shown me that they've found a reason to be in this activity beyond a win-loss record, and I have the utmost respect for that. I respect them creating their own flow. In that same way, I wish for you all the inspiration and drive to create your own flow.
Lane Tech - 2012 - 2013
Iowa City High - 2013 - 2016
University of Northern Iowa - 2016 - 2017
Emporia State 2018 - Current
Updated for the Mid America Cup 2020 -
Thought I would update this to reflect some changes to my outlook on both my career in debate and judging. most of what i have said below still applies but these are the more pertinent changes:
1) I have developed a more flex approach the activity and doing so has made me a better judge for both policy teams and k-teams. Bassically - go for whatever arg you want whether it be elections or bataille
2) rebuttles have become even more important and your speaker points will reflect your performance in the last few speeches than it will in the constructives
3) online debate is ripe with potential hurdles and pitfalls - we will work as a group to come to the best solution so dont worry if something comes up that makes us stop or redue.
4) email chain - if you could put both email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org on the chain that would be much appreciated
Updated for Dowling 2018
TLDR: Almost exclusively read kritiks throughout my entire time in debate, so this is written largely for those teams/debates. That being said, I don't think that my paradigm should influence what you read in the round, in the end I would much rather see you do whatever you are most comfortable or best with, instead of what you think I want to hear.
As a debater, I read almost exclusively kritiks, which includes a wide range of performance, existential philosophy, reps kritiks, antiblackness, queer theory, death good etc. But this pretty much only really means like 2 things. 1) I'm not one of those assholes with a "No Plan, GTFO" belief-system - in fact I'm the opposite, and enjoy plan-less debate immensely. 2) while there is a fair chance I understand what your literature base is, this means I hold your explanation to a higher threshold and will probably have a lot of thoughts after the round about how you could better utilize it.
Other than that my understanding of the literature doesn't play a part in how I determine rounds. While I might be considerably more bored in a policy centric round where I have to weigh the counter-plan and ptx against a "USfg should do" plan text, that doesn't mean I wont actively judge the round to the best of my ability, it also doesn't meant that I wont be equally as bored in a k v k debate. Just win the argument and make my decision easy.
I evaluate framework v a k aff that doesn't defend the resolution as I would hope any other judge would. Unless otherwise specified I'll always default to a model of debate question and which team has presented me with a more desirable model. This means I can be equally persuaded by either teams model, its just a question of what arguments are presented and how they are utilized.
Aff side bias? - I'm not sure. I think my judging record just reflects what I said above, I hold the 2nr to a high standard because I'm also a 2n and more often then not am judging critical debates when I'm on the national circut. An insufficient 2nr makes it difficult to vote neg.
anything else? - feel free to ask, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.
Cypress Bay '21 | UCF '25 (not debating)
Add me to the chain plz: email@example.com
I know you are really only here to do your prefs, I'll try to make it as easy as possible. TLDR, I really couldn't care less what you do, just do you.
In HS I cut our AFFs (90% said extinction), Process CPs, and Ptx DAs so do with this what you wish.
If you are reading an AFF with a "non-extinction" impact, you need to beat the DA, framing doesn't take out the DA it just changes how I weigh impacts.
If you are reading an AFF without a plan, I'm probably not the most experienced judge for you. I never read a K AFF and only ever went for T or the Cap K against them.
If you like to read Ks on the NEG, I will probably have a higher bar/need more explanation for certain kritiks (Baudrillard, Psychoanalysis, Bataille, etc.) but for the more basic kritiks (IR Ks, Cap, Settler Colonialism, etc) I will probably know what you are saying.
You should only ever go for condo bad if its flat out dropped/the NEG really screwed up.
All theory args except condo are reasons to reject the arg, not the team.
Process CPs are good with a rez-specific advocate, PICs are good, 50 State Uniform Fiat is good, Limited Con Cons are good, and so are most other args.
T v. Plans
Limits > ground
Reasonability needs to be coupled with a C/I (apparently ppl think reasonability means being "reasonably topical" and goes with a W/M arg. it doesnt <3
T v. Planless AFFs
Fairness is an impact.
2AR should ideally be a C/I with some form of offense (impact turn or some unique offense)
Plz don't answer whatever they call their "framework is policing" arg with "but limits/fairness outweigh!"
I am a huge fan of the planless "topical" AFF that defends some sort of topical action and links to DAs.
AFF gets to be weighed most of the time (unless something goes really wrong in the 1AR/2AR)
Please no overviews over like 15 seconds or "I'll do the X debate here!".
The more specific the link/more lines picked out of ev the more compelling your arg is/the higher the burden for the AFF to answer said arg is.
CPs need to be functionally OR textually competitive
Word PICs out of words NOT in the plan are NOT competitive.
I'll judge kick the CP by default but if the 2NR doesn't say judge kick and the 2AR says don't judge kick, I wont.
Should almost always turn the case.
Weird/out of the ordinary/reverse politics disads are pretty cool/will be rewarded with high speaks.
Plz don't call me judge.
Presumption flips NEG by default but AFF when a CP is in the 2NR.
If both teams MUTUALLY agree to debate on a previous topic because this one sucks, that's fine with me.
Affiliations and History:
I am the Director of Debate for Hebron High School in Carrollton, TX.
I was an Assistant Coach at Damien High School in La Verne, CA from 2017-2020.
I debated on the national circuit for Damien from 2009-2013.
I graduated from Occidental College in Los Angeles with a BA in Critical Theory and Social Justice.
I completed my Master's degree in Social Justice in Higher Education Administration at The University of La Verne.
My academic work involves critical university studies, Georges Bataille, poetics, and post-colonialism.
I ran a 3 week lab at Stanford on the CJR topic and have judged almost 40 rounds on it.
I judged 29 rounds on the Arms topic (2019-2020) (not including practice rounds without a decision rendered).
I judged a bit of LD (32 debates) on the Jan-Feb Topic (nuke disarm) in '19/'20.
I judged around 25 debates on the Immigration topic (2018-2019) on the national circuit.
I judged around 50 rounds on the Education topic (2017-2018) on the national circuit.
Front Matter Elements:
Please email (firstname.lastname@example.org) me all of the speeches before you begin.
If you need an accommodation of any kind, please email me before the round starts.
I want everyone to feel safe and able to debate- this is my number one priority as a judge.
I don't run prep time while you email the speech doc. Put the whole speech into one speech doc.
I flow 1AC impact framing, inherency, and solvency straight down on the same page nowadays.
Speed is not an issue for me, but I will ask you to slow down (CLEAR) if you are needlessly sacrificing clarity for quantity--especially if you are reading T or theory arguments.
I will not evaluate evidence identifiable as being produced by software, bots, algorithms etc. Human involvement in the card’s production must be evident unique to the team, individual, and card. This means that evidence you directly take from open source must be re-highlighted at a minimum. You should change the tags and underlining anyways to better fit with your argument’s coherency.
I have been voting neg a lot lately. Sometimes this has been on the K v Plan Affs, sometimes it has been on FW v K Affs, and a lot of times just when the aff drops something that ends the game after the 2AC. I am not going to be checking myself for Aff/Neg bias until November, but I think that I may unconsciously dislike most affs on this topic (including LD Sept/Oct).
I privilege technical debating and the flow. I try to get as much down as I possibly can and the little that I miss usually is a result of a lack of clarity on the part of the speaker or because the actual causal chain of the idea does not make consistent sense for me (I usually express this on my face). Your technical skill should make me believe/be able to determine that your argument is the truth. That means warrants. Explain them, impact them, and don't make me fish for them in the un-underlined portion of the six paragraph card that your coach cut for you at a camp you weren't attending. I find myself more and more dissatisfied with debating that operates only on the link claim level. I tend to take a formal, academic approach to the evaluation of ideas, so discussions of source, author intentions and 'true' meaning, and citation are both important to me and something that I hope to see in more debates.
The best debates for me to judge are ones where the last few rebuttals focus on giving me instructions on what the core controversies of the round are, how to evaluate them, and what mode of thinking I should apply to the flow as a history of the round. This means that I'm not going to do things unless you tell me to do them on the flow (judge kick, theory 'traps' etc.). When instructions are not provided or articulated, I will tend to use (what I consider to be) basic, causal logic (i.e. judicial notice) to find connections, contradictions, and gaps/absences. Sometimes this happens on my face--you should be paying attention to the physical impact of the content of your speech act.
I believe in the importance of topicality and theory. No affs are topical until proven otherwise.
Non-impacted theory arguments don't go a long way for me; establish a warranted theory argument that when dropped will make me auto-vote for you. This is not an invitation for arbitrary and non-educational theory arguments being read in front of me, but if you are going to read no neg fiat (for example), then you better understand (and be able to explain to me) the history of the argument and why it is important for the debate and the community.
I try to read all evidence as it is read throughout the debate. This can go well or badly for you, but only if you do not make the debate legible and winnable at the level of argument (which is the only reason I would have to defer to evidentiary details).
I find framework to be a boring/unhelpful/poorly debated style of argument on both sides. I want to hear about the ballot-- what is it, what is its role, and what are your warrants for it (especially why your warrants matter!). I want to know what kind of individual you think the judge is (academic, analyst, intellectual etc.). I want to hear about the debate community and the round's relationship within it. These are the most salient questions in a framework debate for me. If you are conducting a performance in the round and/or debate space, you need to have specific, solvable, and demonstrable actions, results, and evidences of success. These are the questions we have to be thinking about in substantial and concrete terms if we are really thinking about them with any authenticity/honesty/care (sorge).
If you are going to go for Fairness, then you need a metric. Not just a caselist, not just a hypothetical ground dispensation, but a functional method to measure the idea of fairness in the round/outside the round i.e. why are the internal components (ground, caselist, etc.) a good representation of a team's burden and what do these components do for individuals/why does that matter. I am not sure what that metric/method is, but my job is not to create it for you. A framework debate that talks about competing theories for how fairness/education should be structured and analyzed will make me very happy i.e. engaging the warrants that constitute ideas of procedural/structural fairness and critical education.
In-round Performance and Speaker Points:
An easy way to get better speaker points in front of me is by showing me that you actually understand how the debate is going, the arguments involved, and the path to victory. Every debater has their own style of doing this (humor, time allocation, etc.), but I will not compromise detailed, content-based analysis for the ballot.
I believe that there is a case for in-round violence/damage winning the ballot. Folks need to be considerate of their behavior and language. You should be doing this all of the time anyways.
CX ends when the timer rings. I will put my fingers in my ears if you do not understand this. I deeply dislike the trend of debaters asking questions about 'did you read X card etc.' in cross-x and I believe this contributes to the decline of flowing skills in debate. While I have not established a metric for how many speaker points an individual will lose each time they say that phrase, know that it is something on my mind. I will not allow questions outside of cross-x outside of core procedural things ('can you give the order again?,' 'everyone ready?' etc.). Asking 'did you read X card' or 'theoretical reasons to reject the team' outside of CX are NOT 'core procedural things.'
While I believe that high school students should not be held to a standard of intellectual purity with critical literature, I do expect you to know the body of scholarship that your K revolves around: For example, if you are reading a capitalism K, you should know who Marx, Engels, and Gramsci are; if you are reading a feminism k, you should know what school of feminism (second wave, psychoanalytic, WOC, etc.) your author belongs to. If you try and make things up about the historical aspects/philosophical links of your K, I will reflect my unhappiness in your speaker points and probably not give you much leeway on your link/alt analysis. I will often have a more in-depth discussion with you about the K after the round, so please understand that my post-round comments are designed to be educational and informative, instead of determining your quality/capability as a debater.
Do not read these types of arguments in front of me:
Arguments that directly call an individual's humanity into account
Arguments based in directly insulting your opponents
Arguments that you do not understand
Online Debating Preferences:
Each team gets 1 technology error flag. If your opponent's audio/video crashes, if something happens to your computer, if your partner's audio/video crashes, etc. Any other technology issues that might hinder you from completing your speeches are your responsibility. Signal me by either saying 'Tech Issue' or by waving your hands--using chat functions will be sufficient if we cannot rely on audio/visual.
a. The way that this will proceed is as follows: 1. Flag thrown 2.All prepping and debate round activity ceases 3. Speech act paused and tech issue communicated 4. Resolution pursued 5. Tech test with non-round content 6. Resume round
If I am having issues with audio/video, I will let you know via audio and/or chat text.
I will defer to stated tournament online guidelines if they are present otherwise.
New Trier H.S. (2015-2019)
Univ. of Pittsburgh (Present) -- Debating
Top Level Things
- Last Updated: Alta
- Email: email@example.com
- CJR Judging "Stats": Aff - 3, Neg - 3
- In the instance of inevitable tech issues, for debaters and myself, we will pause the speech until the issues are resolved and start again. Please be efficient when resolving them. Look for a thumbs up or a nod to signal that I am ready to listen to your speech & unless I verbally confirm I am ready, assume I am not if/when my camera is off.
- Your choice about having your cameras on or off, but it can certainly be beneficial to connect visually. Just want good audio at the bare minimum
- Go slower. It is not my fault if you are going regular in-person speed and I miss something. Big difference between you going 100% and if I miss something due to audio cut out
- Don't cheat (steal prep, communicate with coaches, etc.). Haven't dealt with anything of this nature, but it will be a loss if it happens
Important (Read just the bold for a quick skim)
This used to be really long so I made this section a little shorter (a futile attempt). Hopefully this gives a quick insight into how I think about debate, but just to note for y’all, as a judge, any pre-conceptions of mine are malleable with good debating. However, given my varying degrees of knowledge/expertise in different arguments, adaptation will matter in how this “good debating” is done.
- Quick topic thoughts: I have judged a few high school debates so far, but I still lack ample knowledge of the topic so explain/clarify acronyms, concepts, etc. I have yet to see a coherent big stick affirmative and I think soft left is the way to go. If the aff isn’t actually reforming what we would intuitively think is the broader CJ system, then T is a great option, but these T-Enact means Congress debates are pretty boring and meh.
- Tech over truth. I flow on paper and what’s on it matters a lot when I’m making a decision. Obviously a dropped argument that’s counterfactual isn’t a winner, but clear line-by-line and argumentative engagement is important to me.
- A couple of different scenarios that are ideal. 1) I have to read evidence to resolve contestation between the debaters, 2) I don't have to read evidence because the debater(s) was/were very persuasive in telling me why I don't need to do so, 3) I can make a decision just based on what I have written on my flow without having to read evidence, 4) Either the 2NR or 2AR starts with writing out my ballot and gives me an easy way out to vote for them along with ample defense/answers to their opponents arguments.
- Do what is most comfortable for you. I am not debating and as a debater myself I appreciate judges who put in a lot of effort to evaluate the debate in a fair and objective manner no matter their argumentative background, so I will do my best to emulate that. Judges, as the role indicates, evaluate what is placed in front of them and irrespective of the jargon and practices of policy debate, the foundation of our speeches rely on persuasion, ethos, etc., so it is just as important to convince me why and how you win no matter the type of arguments you read. For adaptation purposes, I lean more on the policy side of the spectrum, but I am experienced and familiar enough to judge your criticisms (aff wiki has big stick policy stuff and neg wiki has 1 off the K with a little bit of policy stuff)
- Consistency matters as well as explanation. The burden falls on the debaters to point out incoherent parts of arguments, disconnects, etc.; my reading of evidence shouldn’t replace your job of debating it. Additionally, I find myself hesitant to evaluate very new extrapolations of arguments, so continuity in explanation and argumentation between rebuttals are very important to me. Furthermore, I am still working on this myself as a debater, but if you are capable of framing the debate in a larger context and instructing me on what to do with certain arguments, i.e. judge instruction, then do so and reap the rewards.
- Slow down on theory and distinguish the tone of your voice on analytics, tags, and cards to make my job of flowing easier
- Do I really need to say anything about cheating? Don’t even try. Also, goes for reading death good, homophobia good, racism good, etc. Instant loss + 0’s
- Big ups if you kick the aff and go for an impact turn
- Not a point fairy per se but will be relatively generous with speaker points, contingent upon quality of CX, arguments, line-by-line, effort, and sportsmanship i.e. don't be obnoxious/rude
- Interested in debating/attending Pitt or just debating in college? Just ask/email
An affirmative should be in the direction of the topic. While I am better suited to judge an affirmative that defends hypothetical government action through a topical plan, I enjoy well-explained critical affirmatives as well. The more specific and/or tied it is to the resolution, the better for me. If your strategy relies on critiquing debate, then I am not the judge for you.
As many say, it's a lost art. I don't necessarily think you need a lot of evidence to take out a majority of the aff. A thorough explanation of flawed internal links and solvency takeouts coupled with re-cut evidence and impact defense is the way to go and will be rewarded.
I think they can be really strategic and they are the most enjoyable argument to debate, especially if done correctly. I think it depends a whole lot on the argument itself but generally it seems that the impact debate should receive the most focus. To answer the most important question: no spark.
I find fairness to be an internal link to the impact of clash, although I think it is definitely possible to win on fairness alone.
Impact turning seems to be more persuasive to me, but I also think teams can debate framework through an offense-defense method similar to how you debate theory or topicality.
Don't say buzzwords and assert that they matter. Explain them.
For organizational and flowing purposes, whether in the 2AC or 2NC, label the DA's to each other's interpretations.
Competing interpretations > Reasonability
I think topicality should be debated similarly to DA's. Limits/ground are the links, fairness can either be the internal link or impact, and clash is the impact.
Evidence is crucial, wins these debates, and sets the basis for what is predictable
Condo is the only voter and tbh, probably would pull the trigger on kicking planks bad. Everything else is a reason to reject the argument.
Don't hide ASPEC under T. I will dock your speaks
I really dislike disadvantages that rely on FIAT as the link
If your DA is contrived, do me favor and either A) don't read it or B) at least have ok ev for it; it'll be very bad if the DA and the evidence are both awful
The internal link matters the most, and to me, it seems that sometimes aff debaters forget to read the evidence and point out its incoherence. Even if there’s a link or impact, it doesn’t make sense to me to lean neg if the causal chain of events that lead to the impact are non-existent or improbable. I’ll continue my continuity rant here. If the 2NR does not have a robust internal link explanation from the block and the 2AR goes in on that, I will be very compelled to vote aff. My own understanding does not equate to an extension of each part of the DA.
The best counterplans are ones that re-cut 1AC authors. Advantage counterplans are also great. However, don't go overboard on the planks.
I frown at the sight of counterplans that either A) steal the aff, B) generate artificial competition, or C) do both of those things
I personally find it better to couple a kritik with substantial case takeouts rather than a separate link/impact turn on case; some policy aff’s that go for case outweighs are just really bad. But, just because I feel this way does not rule out the effectiveness of the latter strategy.
I have a basic understanding of most K’s. However, K’s with the theoretical foundation of IR and security are in my wheelhouse, and thus can be really good or bad for you depending on how you deploy your scholarship. Cap is pretty straightforward as is biopolitics, so make sure there's a good explanation in all parts of the argument. If you are trying to be innovative with identity kritiks, go for it, but understand I won’t be much help in refining/improving those arguments other than voting for you and comments on what can be better in front of me if you get me as a judge again.
The closer links are to the FIAT-ed implementation of the plan the better, but if you are going for a discourse/epistemology/ontology link, then framework is a must to have a chance of winning. Winning a link of omission will be an uphill battle.
Neg K teams: Case should be answered but it may not be necessary if there is a compelling framework argument that tells me I shouldn’t, which means presumption can be a thing
4th year debater at new trier
**I do not know a lot ab this years topic!!**
yes email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
because novice year is a time to grow and learn:
- have fun, read whatever unless it's offensive/racist/sexist/queerphobic/death good/etc.
- explain why a dropped argument is bad
- k affs are fine but being block dependent and having a strategy based on confusing your opponent,,,
- don't be a jerk
Email - email@example.com
A little bit about me - Hi! I am Miles Luce, I debated for the Barstow School on the national circuit for four years from 2016-2020. Prior, I debated at the Debate Kansas City UDL for two years in Middle School. This summer, I was a lab leader at the 3-Week Jayhawk Debate Institute. I currently debate for the University of Kansas. I am an undergraduate at KU studying Art History, Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, and Philosophy. My pronouns are they/them.
My Background - My argumentative history mostly consists of kritiks and planless affs. I am most familiar with Queer Theory and Poststructuralism. Some of my favorite authors are Jasbir Puar, Judith Butler, Gilles Deleuze, David V. Ruffalo, and Jack Halberstam. I love all debates and would be more than willing to judge a technical policy debate. I hope people do not interpret my paradigm to read as a bias for or against a certain style of debate. As a judge, I understand that my role is to determine which team won the debate.
Why I Love Debate - I believe one of high school debate's greatest functions is exposing students to fields of thought they would not otherwise discover. I really value debaters' investment in research. I know that without debate's exposing me to Queer Theory, I wouldn't have some of the texts that are foundational to my identity as a queer person. Debate was that refuge of self-discovery for me in a restricted home and school environment. It allowed me to express myself in a welcoming environment, in squad meetings, and camps where I found my chosen family. I do not know where I'd be without it.
Evaluating Debates - In evaluating debates, I first prioritize impact calculus. Framing your impact is the most important thing a team can do. Regardless of whether your aff solves X, if you cannot win that X matters, then it is incredibly difficult for me as a judge to endorse your position. In order of priority, I would evaluate turns case, ethics/impact framing, then case outweighs. In debates with equivalent levels of impact calculus, I then prioritize solvency. Given, I do believe the ethicality of an impact might outweigh the question of whether the aff does or does not solve.
Determining Speaks - To me, a good speaker is articulate, persuasive, confident, respectful, and kind. I allocate speaker points based on a debater's skill. However, even if someone is a "good debater" in a skill sense, if they are rude or dismissive to their opponents, their ability as a debater matters much less because they have failed to be a good person. Good speakers should be good people first.
Debated @ UNT 2009-2014
Coach @ St Marks since 2017
Coach @ UTDallas since 2018
If you have questions, feel free to email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
For me, the idea that the judge should remain impartial is very important. I've had long discussions about the general acceptability/desirability of specific debate arguments and practices (as has everybody, I'm sure), but I've found that those rarely influence my decisions. I've probably voted for teams without plans in framework debates more often than I've voted neg, and I've voted for the worst arguments I can imagine, even in close debates, if I thought framing arguments were won. While nobody can claim to be completely unbiased, I try very hard to let good debating speak for itself. That being said, I do have some general predispositions, which are listed below.T-Theory
-I tend to err aff on T and neg on most theory arguments. By that, I mean that I think that the neg should win a good standard on T in order to win that the aff should lose, and I also believe that theory is usually a reason to reject the argument and not the team.
- Conditional advocacies are good, but making contradictory truth claims is different. However, I generally think these claims are less damaging to the aff than the "they made us debate against ourselves" claim would make it seem. The best 2ACs will find ways of exploiting bad 1NC strategy, which will undoubtedly yield better speaker points than a theory debate, even if the aff wins.
- I kind of feel like "reasonability" and "competing interpretations" have become meaningless terms that, while everybody knows how they conceptualize it, there are wildly different understandings. In my mind, the negative should have to prove that the affirmative interpretation is bad, not simply that the negative has a superior interpretation. I also don't think that's a very high standard for the negative to be held to, as many interpretations (especially on this space topic) will be hot fiery garbage.
- My view of debates outside of/critical of the resolution is also complicated. While my philosophy has always been very pro-plan reading in the past, I've found that aff teams are often better at explaining their impact turns than the neg is at winning an impact that makes sense. That being said, I think that it's hard for the aff to win these debates if the neg can either win that there is a topical version of the affirmative that minimizes the risk of the aff's impact turns, or a compelling reason why the aff is better read as a kritik on the negative. Obviously there are arguments that are solved by neither, and those are likely the best 2AC impact turns to read in front of me.CPs
- I'm certainly a better judge for CP/DA debates than K v K debates. I particularly like strategic PICs and good 1NC strategies with a lot of options. I'd be willing to vote on consult/conditions, but I find permutation arguments about immediacy/plan-plus persuasive.
- I think the neg gets away with terrible CP solvency all the time. Affs should do a better job establishing what counts as a solvency card, or at least a solvency warrant. This is more difficult, however, when your aff's solvency evidence is really bad. - Absent a debate about what I should do, I will kick a counterplan for the neg and evaluate the aff v. the squo if the CP is bad/not competitive
- I don't think the 2NC needs to explain why severence/intrinsicness are bad, just win a link. They're bad.
- I don't think perms are ever a reason to reject the aff.
- I don't think illegitimate CPs are a reason to vote aff.Disads
- Run them. Win them. There's not a whole lot to say.
- I'd probably vote on some sort of "fiat solves" argument on politics, but only if it was explained well.
- Teams that invest time in good, comparative impact calculus will be rewarded with more speaker points, and likely, will win the debate. "Disad/Case outweighs" isn't a warrant. Talk about your impacts, but also make sure you talk about your opponents impacts. "Economic collapse is real bad" isn't as persuasive as "economic collapse is faster and controls uniqueness for the aff's heg advantage".Ks
- My general line has always been that "I get the K but am not well read in every literature". I've started to realize that that statement is A) true for just about everybody and B) entirely useless. It turns out that I've read, coached, and voted for Ks too often for me to say that. What I will say, however, is that I certainly focus my research and personal reading more on the policy side, but will generally make it pretty obvious if I have no idea what you're saying.
- Make sure you're doing link analysis to the plan. I find "their ev is about the status quo" arguments pretty persuasive with a permutation.
- Don't think that just because your impacts "occur on a different level" means you don't need to do impact calculus. A good way to get traction here is case defense. Most advantages are pretty silly and false, point that out with specific arguments about their internal links. It will always make the 2NR easier if you win that the aff is lying/wrong.
- I think the alt is the weakest part of the K, so make sure to answer solvency arguments and perms very well.
- If you're aff, and read a policy aff, don't mistake this as a sign that I'm just going to vote for you because I read mostly policy arguments. If you lose on the K, I'll vote neg. Remember, I already said I think your advantage is a lie. Prove me wrong.Case
-Don't ignore it. Conceding an advantage on the neg is no different than conceding a disad on the aff. You should go to case in the 1NC, even if you just play defense. It will make the rest of the debate so much easier.
- If you plan to extend a K in the 2NR and use that to answer the case, be sure you're winning either a compelling epistemology argument or some sort of different ethical calculus. General indicts will lose to specific explanations of the aff absent either good 2NR analysis or extensions of case defense.
- 2As... I've become increasingly annoyed with 2ACs that pay lip service to the case without responding to specific arguments or extending evidence/warrants. Just reexplaining the advantage and moving on isn't sufficient to answer multiple levels of neg argumentation.Paperless debate
I don't think you need to take prep time to flash your speech to your opponent, but it's also pretty obvious when you're stealing prep, so don't do it. If you want to use viewing computers, that's fine, but only having one is unacceptable. The neg needs to be able to split up your evidence for the block. It's especially bad if you want to view their speeches on your viewing computer too. Seriously, people need access to your evidence.Clipping
I've decided enough debates on clipping in the last couple of years that I think it's worth putting a notice in my philosophy. If a tournament has reliable internet, I will insist on an email chain and will want to be on that email chain. I will, at times, follow along with the speech document and, as a result, am likely to catch clipping if it occurs. I'm a pretty non-confrontational person, so I'm unlikely to say anything about a missed short word at some point, but if I am confident that clipping has occurred, I will absolutely stop the debate and decide on it. I'll always give debaters the benefit of the doubt, and provide an opportunity to say where a card was marked, but I'm pretty confident of my ability to distinguish forgetting to say "mark the card" and clipping. I know that there is some difference of opinion on who's responsibility it is to bring about a clipping challenge, but I strongly feel that, if I know for certain that debaters are not reading all of their evidence, I have not only the ability but an obligation to call it out.Other notes
- Really generic backfile arguments (Ashtar, wipeout, etc) won't lose you the round, but don't expect great speaks. I just think those arguments are really terrible, (I can't describe how much I hate wipeout debates) and bad for debate.
- Impact turn debates are awesome, but can get very messy. If you make the debate impossible to flow, I will not like you. Don't just read cards in the block, make comparisons about evidence quality and uniqueness claims. Impact turn debates are almost always won by the team that controls uniqueness and framing arguments, and that's a debate that should start in the 2AC.
Finally, here is a short list of general biases.
- The status quo should always be an option in the 2NR (Which doesn't necessarily mean that the neg get's infinite flex. If they read 3 contradictory positions, I can be persuaded that it was bad despite my predisposition towards conditionality. It does mean that I will, absent arguments against it, judge kick a counterplan and evaluate the case v the squo if the aff wins the cp is bad/not competitive)
- Warming is real and science is good (same argument, really)
- The aff gets to defend the implementation of the plan as offense against the K, and the neg gets to read the K
- Timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude (because everything causes extinction anyways)
- Predictable limits are key to both fairness and education
- Consult counterplans aren't competitive. Conditions is arguable.
- Rider DA links are not intrinsic
- Utilitarianism is a good way to evaluate impacts
- The aff should defend a topical plan
- Death and extinction are bad
I’m a senior and in my 6th year of debate at the Liberal Arts and Science Academy (LASA) in Austin, TX. I went to Michigan 7-week for camp this year, so I’m fairly comfortable with the topic and have had many rounds this year.
If there’s an email chain, add me: email@example.com.
If you have any questions, ask.
Tech over truth, except on politics-related arguments. I read a lot about politics and it really bothers me when people get things wrong. There’s no risk without reward though. If you do politics well, that will help your speaks.
Flashing isn't prep.
I do it. Always. Early on in the tournament, I’m more likely to flow CX. Sometimes, I’ll try and line stuff up, but if it’s too difficult, I’ll just flow straight down. Speed is fine, just be clear. Tell me the order, follow it and make it clear when you switch pages. If you have time at the end of your speech, you can go back, but it’s not ideal. If you show me your flows and they’re good, I’ll give you up to .5 extra speaks. The worst that can happen is that they’re bad, but I won’t penalize you for that.
Enact probably has to be Congress. Reasonability is pretty persuasive in most cases. Contextualize the interp and counter-interp and explain how they actually relate to the impacts.
Do impact comparison and make sure to extend the entire DA throughout the round. Extend your warrants.
I lean towards consequentialism.
If you go for Trump or GOP good impact/impact turn, it’s going to be hard to get me to vote for you on that unless the other team drops it.
Have recent uniqueness. Camp uniqueness evidence is not recent enough.
Don’t read Base and Elections together. I think the base resilient claims are true but I can be convinced. I love elections so reading it may make me happy.
I love impact turn debates, my favorites are prolif good, China war good, and Russia war good.
Have a solvency advocate. Use the aff evidence if possible. Have sufficiency framing at the top of the 2NR. Most CPs are legitimate as long as they don’t completely steal the aff or fiat something giant.
I don’t know much of anything about these, if you really want to read it go ahead but I lean aff. Have aff specific links and do line by line. I really hate it when people divide their speeches into link, alt, and impact; do that part of the argument where it belongs based on what the 2A said. Have a lot of clear explanation. If you make any connections to politics, even if kind of far-fetched, it will probably get you speaker points and help me understand it more. You need to have a specific alternative and be able to answer what the world would look like after the alt happens. I lean towards Cap good stuff.
The aff needs to be able to weigh their 1AC.
K Aff –
I've read a K aff but if you decide to read one in front of me, it will require a higher level of explanation as I am not familiar with many K lit bases.
It won’t be hard to win framework in front of me but if you can explain it well and the other team doesn’t do a good job of answering it or reading framework, I might vote for you but it’s risky.
Arguments about high schoolers not being able to effect change in the government make me sad and I definitely think there are ways we can have an effect. Control of the Virginia House of Delegates was decided by 1 vote and canvassing could’ve changed that. We can call our Representatives or Senators, donate or volunteer on a campaign.
Lean neg here. Fairness is an impact and an internal link to education.
Have a convincing counter-interp that actually solves some of the framework impacts. “Their interp but also our aff” is not an example of a good counter-interp.
Probably lean neg on most of these because I’m a 2N. I tend to lean aff on multi-actor CP theory. I lean neg on international and process CP theory. PICs are probably legitimate as long as they have a solvency advocate and are at least functionally competitive. Three or fewer condo worlds are probably okay, four and up starts to get a little more questionable. I think the CP needs to have a solvency advocate, even if it’s not in the 1NC. I lean to reject the argument, not the team, because most things probably aren’t abusive enough to warrant a loss. Going for substance is better. If you want to go for it, make sure it’s a substantial part of previous speeches and that it expands and changes in every speech.
Please put me on the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
Preferred pronouns he/him
Barstow 19 — (debated for four years)
Kansas 23 – (I am a sophomore at KU, but have decided to take a break from debate. I debated my freshman year and broke at multiple college tournaments.)
1. Debate what you know best. Demonstrate that knowledge with comparative work on the line by line. I will do my best to leave my own argument preferences at the door and judge to the best of my ability.
2. Judge instruction – The more the better. The last two rebuttals should put the nexus question at the top, explain why you are ahead there and let that frame the rest of the ballot.
3. COVID-19 related – COVID and this year writ large sucks. I have immense respect for everyone, especially this year’s seniors, that have decided to continue with debate. In order to expedite the debate, please try to send emails as efficiently as possible.
1. Policy—I have recently started reading more policy args, but please LOWER your debate theory explanations. Cards and smart analytics should be a 50/50 balance. In a policy AFF vs k debate, there is a tendency to card dump in the 2ac and then go for whatever conceded card comes out of the block. I understand this is strategic and often works. But in an ideal debate, it should be the opposite, with considerably more analytical work done.
2. K AFF’s – I have read a wide range of K AFF’s, mostly relating to critical Asian scholarship. I don’t think there is a cookie-cutter structure to an AFF or to answering arguments like FW. I am all here for the creative AFF strats, but draw the line at you must have a topic link. I find that K teams often have a very good understanding of their aff but struggle with recontextualizing the theory into a diverse and technical set of arguments. Rely less on your blocks and trust in your ability to debate the line by line.
- FW— I have no problem voting on fairness and other standards. I am not asking for you to reinvent the wheel, but please reapply your arguments to the language of the AFF. For example, instead of just stating your education block, tell me why the loss of education is uniquely worse for the AFF’s discussion. Whatever you do, don’t throw away the case and at least extend some form of defense or presumption argument.
- K’s— I will most likely be familiar or have run whatever K, you read in front of me. Less is more in these rounds. More arguments do not equate to a better block. It just results in a more spread out speech with less time on the line by line. Alt’s need to solve either the links or the AFF.
- DA’s and CP’s – I am by all means capable of judging a policy v policy debate but again please bring your level of analysis down. Again, I will take analytics over a ton of cards any day.
- Theory – I have a high threshold for voting on theory arguments. But if you think it’s the path to victory, I am all for it. Just know that the more ridiculous, the more time you are going to have to spend on it.
Updated: Harvard National Forensics Tournament
policy- (i once in a while judge pf- that paradigm is at the bottom)
**too long; didn't read**
- head coach at the university of chicago laboratory schools
- i view the speech act as an act and an art. debate is foremost a communicative activity. i want to be compelled.
- i go back and forth on topicality/fw vs kritik/performance affs, which is supported by my voting record.
- i'm open to voting on nearly anything you put in front of me. details below.
- academic creativity & originality will be rewarded
- clarity matters. i flow by ear, including your cards' warrants and cites
- tag team cx is okay as long as its not dominating
- don't vape in my round, it makes me feel like an enabler
if you do not see me on camera then assume i am not there. please go a touch slower on analytics if you expect me to flow them well.
i am currently the head coach for u chicago lab schools. i've judged 43 cjr debates so far, and will probably have >50 rounds by the end of the season. i've assisted with coaching debate on the north shore for several years. former policy debater at maine east (north shore, wayne tang gharana) with some college debating at iowa. i identify as subaltern, he/they pronouns are fine. my academic background is medicine. this means i haven't spent my summers deeply reading into the topic aside camp files. it also means you may be counseled on tobacco cessation.
**how to win my ballot**
*entertain me.* connect with me. teach me something. be creative. its impossible for me to be completely objective, but i try to be fair in the way i adjudicate the round.
as tim 'the man' alderete said, "all judges lie." with that in mind...
i get bored- which is why i reward creativity in research and argumentation by being more forgiving in articulation. if you cut something clever, you want me on your panel. i appreciate the speech as an act and an art. i prefer debates with good clash than 2 disparate topics. while i personally believe in debate pedagogy, i'll let you convince me it's elitist, marginalizing, broken, or racist. i wish i could adhere to a paradigmatic mantra like 'tech over truth.' but i've noticed that i lean towards truth in debates where both teams are reading lit from same branch of theory. my speaker point range is 27-30, above 28.3 being what i think is 'satisfactory' for your division. do not abuse the 2nr.
Congrats! you're slowly sinking into a strange yet fascinating vortex called policy debate. it will change your life, hopefully for the better. focus on the line by line and impact analysis. if you're confused, ask instead of apologize. this year is about exploring. i'm here to judge and help :)
i think debaters should be able to defend why their departure from (Classic mode) Policy is preferable. however i don't enter the round believing plan texts are necessary for a topical discussion. i enjoy being swayed one way or the other debate to debate on k affs vs framework. overall, its an interesting direction students have taken Policy. i used to be a HUGE t & spec hack. nowadays, the they tend to get messy. so some flow organization is much appreciated: number your args, sign post through the line-by-line, slow down to give me a little pen time. i do not enter the round with an assumption of the necessity of plan texts. argument of T through analogy, metaphor, exclusion/inclusion is just as valid as a discussion of voters; i tend to vote on analysis with specificity and/or(?) creativity.
i enjoy performance, original poetry, rap, singing, moments of sovereignty, etc. i find most "high theory" and critical identity politics literature & debates enjoyable. i dont mind how you choose to organize k speeches/overviews so long as there is some way you organize thoughts on my flow. 'long k overviews' can be (though seldom are) beautiful. i appreciate a developed analysis. more specific the better, examples and analogies help a lot. i default to empiricism/historical analysis as competitive warranting unless you frame the debate otherwise. i understand that the time constraint of debate can prevent debaters from fully unpacking a kritik. if i am unfamiliar with the argument you are making, i will prioritize your explanation. i may also read your evidence and google-educate myself. this is a good thing and a bad thing, and i think its important you know that asterisk.
**spec, theory, and ethics challenges**
PLEASE DO NOT HIDE YOUR ASPEC VIOLATIONS. if the argument is important i prefer you invite the clash than evade it.
i have no way to fairly judge arguments that implicate your opponent's behavior before the round, unless i've witnessed it myself or you are able to provide objective evidence. debate is a competitive environment which means i take accusations with a degree of skepticism. i think the trend to turn debate into a kangaroo court, or use the ballot as a tool to ostracize members from the community speaks to the student/coach's tooling of authority at tournaments as well as the necessity for pain in their notion of justice. a really good podcast that speaks to this topic in detail is invisibilia: the callout.
on traditional theory args, whatever happened to presumption debates? i more often find theory compelling when contextualized to why there's a specific reason to object to the argument (e.g. why the way this specific perm operates is abusive/sets a bad precedent). i always prefer the clash to be developed earlier in the debate and more than vomiting blocks at each other. as someone who used to go for theory, i think there's an elegant way to trap someone. and it same stipulations apply- if you want me to vote for it, make sure i'm able to clearly hear and distinguish your subpoints.
i always enjoy creative, case specific PICs. i like hearing good story-weaving in the overview. i do vote on theory - see above. i also enjoy an in depth case debate, particularly with this resolution. i do not have a deep understanding on the procedural intricacies of our legal system and may internet-educate myself on your ev during your round
PoFo - (modified from Tim Freehan's poignant paradigm):
I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.
Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at debate as competitive research or full-contact social studies. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Framework, philosophical, moral arguments are great, though I need instruction in how you want me to evaluate that against tangible impacts.
Evidence quality is very important.
I will vote with what's on what is on the flow only. I enter the round tabula rasa, i try to check my personal opinions at the door as best as i can. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.
Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.
Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.
I am a fan of “Kritik” arguments in PF! I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. You can attack your opponents scholarship. Racism, sexism, heterocentrism, will not be tolerated between debaters. I have heard and will tolerate some amount of racism towards me and you can be assured I'll use it as a teaching moment.
I reward debaters who think outside the box.
I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. But if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”
Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Some of the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.
While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.
The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.
I care about substance more than style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.
Relax. Have fun.
Glenbrook North ‘19
University of Pittsburgh ‘23
I currently debate at the University of Pittsburgh. I’m pretty familiar with debate- if you care about quals: qualled to the toc twice, qualled and cleared at the NDT, broke at most college tournaments.
Debate is a game and tech determines truth. Explanation over lingo. Ev matters, but only if you make that part of the debate. Impact calc matters to me more than most judges.
Every one of my predispositions can be resolved by effectively instructing me how to resolve a key part of the debate- none of these are "non-debatable".
Computer issues are inevitable, just fix them in a timely manner. Slow down, be clear, if I were debating, I'd turn my camera on- but up to you.
framework / t;
My assumption is that the aff has to defend the resolution, the neg has to disprove the resolution. I think TVAs are important ways to resolve the content issues affs identify. Make a distinction between form and content. Assumptions are malleable and feel free to change them. Predictability is important and limits are generally good. Fairness can be an impact, but that begs the question of whether it's unique / external impacts. I think planless affs are fine. Most importantly, impact turn fw or be quasi-topical; don't do both. Have a vision for what your model of debate looks like, I feel less comfortable voting for affs that try to avoid negative engagement.
cap k vs non-policy affs-
make link arguments that necessitate a trade-off between the aff's method and the alt, be specific, cx for links, etc.
kritiks on the neg;
In high school, every 2nr was politics or a process cp. In college, it's the k 90% of rounds and an occasional impact turn or politics. I don't care. Explain your argument, frame even if questions, and read good ev. Link's don't need to be intrinsic, that's why you have an alt. Aff's and neg's need to explain why their framework args matter, otherwise it's a waste of time and I just end up evaluating alt solvency vs the plan. I care about turns case a lot and ev quals matter. Examples plz.
I like voting on links to nb and perms. I think many counterplans don't have well-thought-out net benefits and affs should utilize that. I don't judge kick unless the 2NR tells me to. Smart 1ARs should preempt that. Framing arguments about net benefits are important to me; is the disad linear? is it a yes/no question? How big of a link does the neg need to win to have a nb?
I was a 2A and a 2N so I don't really have huge preferences. I think substantive answers over theory are better. I think specifics and examples matter in counterplan legitimacy debates. I think reject the arg, not the team resolves every theory arg except condo. Counterplan legitimacy is determined by the quality of neg ev in comparison to the quality of aff solvency ev. If the 1AC advocate is crap, neg gets to do whatever. I like impact turning the nb- neg teams aren't prepped well for that imo.
I think t-subs isn't an arg. I don't like t debates unless the quality of evidence is good. If the neg reads t shells that are just time skews, I'm lenient to aff teams that just say "w/m / reasonability" and move on. Predictability is key to limits. Limits for limits sake is the logic of 'only our aff is topical' so please read contextual ev.
—they’re great; unless... you don’t make turns case or framing issues about what offense supersedes the other; very few judges want to sort through 50 dedev cards
any questions? is there a neg resolution? lmk
put me on the email chain --- email@example.com
how to get good speaks; be clear, signpost, make strategic decisions (strategy =\= foolish risks), be technical, clear judge instruction is key- if there is a reason you want me to prefer X over Y... say it, otherwise I will intervene and choose what I find more convincing
past / current affiliations;
University of Pittsburgh
Glenbrook North hs
Archbishop Mitty hs
Canyon Crest hs
Last edited 1/30/2021.
2020 Important Notice:
I graduated from Notre Dame High School in 2017 and have been 3 years entirely removed from debate. During my senior year at ND my partner Mikaela Appleby and I qualified to the TOC with 7 bids. Therefore, I while I know about debate structure and what constitutes a fully formed argument, I know little about this year's topic. So with that being said, make sure to extra-explain concepts or acronyms that are specific to this year's topic.
I've judged roughly about 25 rounds on this topic so far in the year.
My virtual debating policies:
You do not need to turn on your webcam! It is entirely up to you and I understand why some people my refrain for various reasons.
Technology never works when we need it to, I understand that. That being said, you should be taking active steps to ensure the speed and reliability of your computer when debating. That means:
-Completely shutting down and restarting your computer every now and then. If it's been a week since you last did this, that's why it's really slow.
-Having a lot of tabs open is a HUGE drain on your computer's speed. ESPECIALLY, if you're running google chrome. Close out of as many tabs as you can. If you have an older computer, I would recommend switching to a different browser like firefox (not sure if it's NSDA Campus compatible, you should check) as it is less demanding on the hardware of your computer.
-If you have a little extra money, invest in an ethernet cord if your computer has the ability to take one. A wired connection is infinitely more reliable than a wireless one.
IMPORTANT - due to the nature of virtual debate including lag spikes, or moments of being unable to hear the person speaking, I am far far less likely to vote on quick 5 second theory arguments that go completely dropped. I'm willing to blame the drop on poor video/audio quality. If you'd still like to run arguments like aspec or fiat bad yada yada, devote at least 10 seconds into it and have the analytics in the speech doc.
If you are a first year debater:
If you are a first year debater, read the arguments you are most comfortable with, regardless of what anything else in this paradigm says.
Above all else I want you to talk about what you know the most! I want to see good, clear arguments.
An argument is a claim, followed by an explanation of the claim, followed by some data to back it up.
You should try your best to stay organized, responding to your opponents' arguments in a "line-by-line" fashion.
Have fun! And if you have any questions before the round please don't be afraid to ask me.
I love the activity and if you're in it I think you're doing something valuable with your time. Which, means that you should do your best to include everybody in the community and be a good person overall. If you start being a jerk during the debate, and it gets excessive, I will step in and I will drop your speaks. Be polite y'all, it isn't too difficult!
I will not vote on "death good", I urge you to consider the effects of the argument in a high school environment where you are blissfully unaware of the mental health of other students in the activity.
You do you as long as you can explain it.
Tech > Truth
When it comes to topic areas I know the most about, those would be heg, climate, the security k, and Agamben. I have no idea how relevant those are this year, but if you're able to go for any of these arguments those are my favorite debates to judge!
I am sympathetic to framework generally speaking and believe that debate at it's core is a game with little out-of-round "real world" impact, but:
At the least aff's should defend some form of the resolution, and have an advocacy statement (not necessarily the usfg). Affs that make broad statements about bad stuff happening without a mechanism or explanation for resolving the bad stuff are generally bland debates and leave the neg with no non-offensive ground.
That being said don't be scared of reading your usual k aff, I will happily vote on it as long as you explain it to me. The most work you will need to do is explaining to me why my ballot actually means something.
Non-usfg k affs don't usually get to perm the k unless they explain to me why they do.
Love it. It's underused unfortunately, so if you do a great job at getting into the "nitty-gritty" details of what the aff actually does and how it does or does not solve, I will reward you with speaker points accordingly.
It is possible to win a zero risk of the aff and I will vote on presumption if the case debate is good enough.
Meh....I'm not a fan of it, I just don't find theoretical debates very interesting. I do however, understand the value of them. This means that if you have the ability to win on substance, you should probably just go for substance.
Slow down for the love of all that is holy when reading your theory blocks, because like most people, my hand can only write so fast.
Condo is good in moderation - the neg should probably get 1 k and one 1 cp, anything more than that leaves me open to condo bad being an acceptable argument...But it doesn't mean I'll vote on it unless the "abuse" seems clear.
The quality of process/consult/conditions cp's is determined by how good the ev is. If anything I lean more neg than aff on these due to being a 2n.
I lean neg on this question.
Explain to me what abuse has occurred, and why it has become impossible or unfair to be neg.
The argument should not be focused on the "content" of the 1ac, but rather that the way in which that their mechanism for doing so isn't T, and thats what makes it impossible to debate them.
Fairness is an impact.
Debate is probably a game.
I love me some evidence comparison. The less reading of your evidence I have to do after the round, the better. Tell me what your ev says and why it's better than what their ev says.
These are great, I love them.
Solvency advocates are important, if the aff sufficiently points out that the neg doesn't really have one, the cp goes away easily.
Kritiks I like are: Security, Agamben, Foucault, legalism, cap, consumption, and university. Which, isn't a very extensive or diverse list really. I have my niche of k's that I like, if you read one of those you can assume I have a bit of knowledge about it and can change how you argue about it accordingly. If its not on this list, I may have heard it, and if I have, my understanding of it will be on a very shallow level. So please be sure to give good explanations particularly in cx as to what the k actually means.
Links should be specific. You should explain why what the aff has done is uniquely bad and causes X impact to occur. I have a high threshold for the link debate.
The alt should mean something. Its the weakest part of the debate which I know from experience, so invest time into telling me what it means to vote neg, what the world of the alternative looks like, and how it resolves the impact to the 1ac and the k.
Good Luck and have fun!
(If you're stressing out: http://i.imgur.com/KZf5kWZ.gifv)
Note - this was probably a terrible paradigm and you might still have a question about the way I view debate. Please feel free to ask me before the round starts. Alternatively, if after the debate you have further questions give them to your coach and have your coach reach out to me.
Hi! I’m an assistant coach for Crossings Christian and have been since 2020. I started debating in the sixth grade and debated at Crossings from 2013-2020. I competed at the national level since the eighth grade, broke at a couple TOCQs, and won two 5A state titles in Oklahoma.
I was a flex debater, which means I debated both policy and the K and am comfortable with either. I ran many different Ks during my seven years of debate, such as Agamben, Cap, Setcol, Afropess (with a black partner), Baudrillard, and Psychoanalysis. I don’t have anything against nontopical or performance affs, and I’m generally tech over truth.
There are a few things I’ll vote a team down for, no matter what’s happening in the rest of the round:
- Being rude, laughing at, or mocking the other team.
- Death good, suicide good, or advocating for killing people, especially if these arguments are contextualized to someone in the room.
Things I like:
- A nice joke in your speech, even if it’s corny. Have fun in the round!
- Being respectful to your opponents and your partner.
- Telling me what I should write for my RFD.
Things I dislike:
- Disclosure theory, perf con good theory, and multiple worlds good theory. I especially dislike multiple worlds good theory being used as a reason why your 2AC block doesn’t contradict itself.
- The phrase “This card/argument is trash” or similar phrases. Tell me why the argument’s bad instead of just insulting it.
- Ks without alts.
- Eugenics good
Please email me your speech documents. I have judged over a 1000 HS and College Debates over the last 18 years. I am a lawyer and lectured this past summer on this year's HS topic at Institutes for the NY UDL and the DC UDL Coaches Workshop and at Summer Institutes at the University of Michigan, Gonzaga, Georgetown and Harvard.
If you run a K, and actually have an ALT that can be proven to SOLVE a problem - - - any problem - - - it would be the first one I have heard that does solve a problem in 18 years of judging debates and then you might get my ballot, but probably not depending on how well the AFF does. If you are AFF and have a Plan that SOLVES a problem without creating more or larger problems - - - you might well get my ballot, depending on how well you debate during the round.
I listen to arguments, favor clash to determine who does the better job of debating, and no matter the chosen framing or style of either or both teams, I judge the debate based on what is said during the DEBATE by the Debaters.
I began high school judging in 1973.
I started judging college debate in 1976.
Between 1977 and 2002, I took a vacation from debate to practice law and raise a family.
Since 2002, I have judged between 40 and 80 Rounds a year in High School and had brief stints judging college and professional debate while "coaching" for the University of Redlands, my alma mater, in, I believe, 2010.
You can debate your own stuff, but I am not a theory fan.
I believe I have voted NEG on topicality four times in 18 years, twice in non-traditional AFF debates and once at the Kentucky RR when I thought the AFF made a mistake and I also thought the NEG made them pay, although a very competent and distinguished judge who was also judging the same round felt differently. So, even in the one traditional debate round where I voted NEG on T, I was probably wrong. I believe in AFF creativity, reasonability which guarantees predictability.
BUT (and and this is a CAPITAL BUT) I like/strongly prefer substantive debates ABOUT the topic area, so long as the Plan is a reasonable illustration of the Resolution.
People who listen and answer arguments well get great speaker points. People who are nice and friendly and not jerks also like their speaker points.
I have had teams run K's and all kinds, types and nature of CP's. The PERM Debate really makes a difference in a K and CP Round. I am not the most philosophically literate humyn being on the planet, so please explain your esoteric K and your even more esoteric K responses.
Cross-Examination is IMPORTANT, so please ask questions, get answers and ask more questions. When responding, please listen to the question that is asked and ANSWER it. No need to fight or argue. Ask questions, Get Answers, move on.
For the clash of civilization people who want to know more about my feelings and leanings, perhaps the best information I can give you is that I listened to a recording of the final round of the 2013 NDT and would have voted for Northwestern had I been judging. The framework debate in my mind flowed Negative.
I enjoy DISADS and case debates. I am particularly fond of hidden Case Turns that become huge Disads.
I know how hard you work and will attempt to work just as hard to get things right.
I debated policy in high school in Michigan (East Kentwood High School class of 2000). I also debated parliamentary style debate throughout college. I have stuck around in the judging pool for CX, LD, and PF since then at tournaments in Utah, Illinois, and Texas.
I try to be open in my judging philosophy. I will sit in any box that you persuasively put me in and will vote on any position, regardless of what I believe in real life. I do put a lot of stock in debaters weighing issues in the round and arguing, rather than merely asserting how and why I should vote. I reserve the right to vote on my own biases or gut feeling if you don't adequately weigh your impacts for me, however. I want the debaters to make my job easy by telling me why they've won.
That said, I believe that debate should at least tangentially be about the topic and the resolution. I am skeptical of cases which are clearly run on both the Aff and the Neg and which have nothing to do with the resolution. I will listen to and vote on any position which is well-argued, but I find certain forms of argumentation inherently less persuasive. If your case doesn't primarily support or negate the resolution you should probably strike me.
add me to the email chain. firstname.lastname@example.org
From Arm sales topic but sort of updated.
Also please makes jokes, debate gets boring really fast
Just call me Eva, not judge
line by line is important
I don't care what speed you read but just be clear
Most of the time I don't make faces but if I do, be wary (this matters if we go back in person)
Impact calc key for affs to do if y'all want an aff ballot. All of my debate career I have only read soft left affs, but I do understand the literature from all aff types. If you have an aff and it has a structural violence impact with some framing, and another impact of war, disease, Econ collapse, etc. Go for one, not both if the 2ar extends their genocide and war impacts, a big no-no. (this happens a lot too)
I like these affs, breath of fresh air from the basic policy affs from the topic resolution. I would prefer teams to read a plan text and defend some action. (doesn't have to be USFG as an actor) I have judged and voted on identity affs a good amount during the arms sales topic and cjr topic.
have a clear internal link and link story, how does point A lead to point B. Don't use generic evidence for the link, there has to be a clear point that the AFF. I lean slightly aff on this so the neg needs to do some work to prove the DA. If you run a da PLEASE RUN A CP, with it cause yeah there is a risk but I don't have another way to solve that's on my flow. If you are running a relations da, Econ da, or other one make sure you have recent evidence so the impact is concrete.
t has been very over-limiting on a lot of topics I have debate on, majority of T arguments only make certain big affs topical. breath>depth. I'm pretty neutral on judging this, it comes down to the extensions in the 2nr and the response in the 2ar on how I should write my ballot. ASPEC I'm not a big fan of, if you go for it the 2nr should be just aspec and explain the voter in the round and why fairness and ed are key. CJR specific I have voted on t on this topic and I have voted against it.
Love a good perm/theory debate. Both sides need to do work to prove whether if the cp is competitive/noncompetitive and that it does/doesn't solve the aff w/o linking to the net benefit. impact calc of the nb is key for my ballot.
If you are reading a k I'm a good judge to have in the back of the room. In my JV/varsity year, I did mainly one-off Agamben K and on arms sales topic Orientalism K was my main 2nr. A good amount of 1st-year rounds I judged were more critical. I'm in the loop on K literature, so you really don't have to explain terms just the world of the alt looks like and why I should pick the neg's fw over the affirmative. these rounds are either really good or really bad. Known to be very messy Only run it if you really understand it.No no generic link cards, have to be specific to the aff. By the 2nr the neg should have a clear story of what the world of the alt is, and why the k matters in this round.
Add me to the email chain! email@example.com
Read (almost) whatever you want in front of me. It's my job to remain as neutral as possible when making a decision.
Don't read violent arguments (death/racism/sexism/ableism/transphobia etc good) in front of me.
Tech>Truth, but it's a lot easier to beat bad arguments
If you show me your flows after the round, I'll give you +0.2 speaks :)
I appreciate 1ncs that really invest in the case debate, but I understand that can be hard on the CJR topic
Please do line by line framing, I don't want to hear your block you wrote in August
If you go for an impact turn (well) I'll reward with good speaks <3
Condo and sometimes 2nc cps are probably reasons to reject the team
Everything else is probably a reason to reject an argument
I realllllly value specific links to the plan, and am going to have a pretty low threshold for a perm if the entire link debate is you just repeating the words "reformist - reform" for 45 seconds
Please be clear on framework. I'll listen to whatever's debated in front of me, but if there's no clash or the 2nr was just you running through blocks at top speed, I'll default that the aff should get to weigh their plan against the alternative
I've never run one, but I would be cool voting for one
I'm persuaded by aff framework interps that either have a clear role for the negative or defend a material change that grants the neg da links